3 ms·
We don't need to play this pointless semantics game every time the word "natural" is used. There is an inarguable qualitative difference between the types of o
by stouset 8y ago
We don't need to play this pointless semantics game every time the word "natural" is used.
There is an inarguable qualitative difference between the types of objects and materials that can be produced from undirected mechanical and chemical processes and those that can be produced through the work of intelligent, living beings.
In picking this semantic nit, you've completely ignored the actual point made by the GP: we've seen countless examples of new and strange phenomena that end up being described by undirected physical and chemical processes. We have yet to find anything that requires intelligent life to explain, like an interstellar skyscraper would.
- pbhjpbhj 8y agoIt was more a "oh, this is a cool idea [to me, at this instant]". Particularly I like that it sent me in to thinking of an alien life form that could, maybe like ants, construct a large scale "artefact" - like a solar sail - that we would recognise as being wrought by intelligent life but would actually be the result of some sub-intelligent life form. I like Fritjof Capra's rendition of Gaia hypothesis (as an idea), but had never really extended the idea of self-ordering, or complex-ordering, to how we might interact with alien constructions. >In picking this semantic nit, you've completely ignored ...// Just my reaction to it.